Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear on June 22 plea by West Bengal Government and State Law Minister Moloy Ghatak against the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to place on record affidavits filed by them in the Narada Scam case.

The five Judge bench of the Calcutta High Court on June 9^th, refused to admit the affidavit filed by the state government on the ground  that “if the Petitioner wanted to file its response, time should have been sought at the time of issuing notice and not when the arguments are at an advances stage, more so when the Petitioner was a party, which only had to respond to certain factual assertions made in the pleadings by the CBI, in utter disregard to the Principles of natural justice and de hors the applicable rules of the High Court for completion of pleadings”.

While the Calcutta High Court has scheduled the hearing on Monday, the vacation bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian while listing the matter on Tuesday said “we hope the High Court defers hearing the matter on Monday and Tuesday’.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said “I’m not on caveat and I learnt from the newspapers that the case has been filed. I request the case be adjourned and a copy of the petition be given to me”.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appearing for Law Minister, Moloy Ghatak submitted that it was essential to file the affidavit in order to indicate the law-and-order situation.

A five-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court is hearing a batch of connected matters, including Transfer Petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation seeking to transfer the pending proceedings before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI to the High Court in which the Law minister has been made a party.

The petitioners in the present petition have submitted that while considering the submissions made by the CBI opposing the Affidavit filed by the Petitioner, the High Court failed to consider that the Petitioner was impleaded in the matter at a later stage, and was therefore, required to obtain permission of the High Court, before filing the Affidavit in-opposition.

It has further been submitted that the affidavit was necessary to prove that the Petitioners presence in the Court Complex did not intimidate or daunt the Special Judge either in  his Court Room or his chamber and the CBI was vehemently objecting for the same to be taken on record, without showing what prejudice will the said affidavit cause to the case of the CBI, or what point in the Affidavit-in-opposition cannot be replied to during the rebuttal by the CBI at the  end of the hearing.